Homelessness is not simply a matter of poor choices, as letter-writer William F. Hineser suggests. Understanding, let alone changing, human behavior is an enormously complex undertaking. We are imperfect beings arising from a variety of biological, psychological and social circumstances, all of which influence how we make choices.

“Just how many chances do we supply?,” asks Hineser. As many as it takes, so long as our efforts are supported by quality research on what produces the best results. Success rates in behavior-change programs, carefully established and implemented, are doing extremely well when they reach 20 percent. Giving up can mean less impetus for change and perhaps even growing and worsening circumstances for the homeless and communities in which they live.

John Ruszczyk,Littleton

This letter was published in the Jan. 17 edition.

Ignorance is bliss. I understand letter-writer William F. Hineser’s reluctance to actually believe that not all homeless are drunks, druggies, etc. However, I am living proof; my husband and I have been homeless for some time now. We had a very lovely home in Parker, but then my husband became ill. After that, everything seemed to go wrong. I lost my job trying to care for my husband. And guess what — the homeless don’t get many jobs.

My husband is a vet, disabled and has a service dog. We don’t want a handout, but we need help. We are here through no fault of our own, or lack of education.

Remember, there but for the grace of God go you.

Noemi Soto,Parker

This letter was published in the Jan. 17 edition.

Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

Letter-writer Donald Burnes’ reply to Vincent Carroll’s very reasonable statements about the homeless (“No miracle cure for homeless,” Dec. 28 column) is a prime example of the significant failure of our anti-poverty programs and many of the recipients. Burnes suggests more funding and services instead of talking about ways the homeless can help themselves. Certainly there is nothing wrong with giving a hand up. But just how long are we required to give handouts to support the bad decisions of others? How long do the rest of us have to pay for individuals who smoke too much, drink too much, do drugs, fail to complete even a basic education, or have a lifetime of bad decision-making? Just how many chances do we supply? As a society, we have failed to answer these questions. Can we afford to continue to leave them unanswered?

William F. Hineser, Arvada

This letter was published in the Jan. 10 edition.

Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

I strongly disagree with Vincent Carroll that we will never end homelessness as long as we are a free society. What is lacking is the political and public will to do so.

Unfortunately, too many people think that those experiencing homelessness are there because of addictions and/or mental illness or because of “bad decisions.” There are many of us “housed” citizens who have addictions and/or mental illness or make bad decisions. What’s the difference? The difference for the homeless is a lack of resources.

What we need is a major campaign to change the attitudes of the vast majority of the public so that there is a real groundswell of demand for a very significant expansion of both public and private dollars to provide the necessary housing and services that so many of those experiencing homelessness need.

Donald Burnes, Denver

The writer is executive director of the Burnes Institute on Poverty and Homelessness.

This letter was published in the Jan. 4 edition.

Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

Thanks to reporter Colleen O’Connor for bringing attention to the nationwide trend of passing laws which criminalize acts of survival conducted in public spaces by people without houses.

As O’Connor’s article states, when one city gets tough on people without houses, these people often move to another city in an effort to survive. As a result, there’s a general “toughening up” everywhere, forcing homeless people to break the law in an effort to survive.

But what if, instead of following this “get tough” trend, Denver became known as the city that created real solutions to homelessness by providing the variety of permanent housing options and supportive services which unhoused people need to be successful?

Maybe this and other acts of human decency would help remove the “homeless” label from those who cannot afford housing and reduce the “fear of the homeless” syndrome which is so often cited as justification for treating struggling human beings like criminals.

Nancy Peters, Denver

This letter was published in the March 15 edition.

There is truth on both sides of the homelessness/panhandling debate. It is a difficult issue because no one seems to want to be considerate of people less able to help themselves, yet no one wants to be in that position. In all my years of lay and professional ministry, I have yet to meet anyone who wanted to be homeless, food-insecure, vulnerable to attack, sick without medicine and access to health care, or a visible pariah who is ridiculed and shamed.

All humans are deserving of love and care regardless of their ability to contribute or compete in this increasingly cruelly engineered social and economic climate. The solution lies in restoring the public social safety net that has been deliberately dismantled over the last 40 years while blaming the victim for their own plight. Compassion for the poor isn’t weakness. It’s the highest expression of God’s grace-filled nature.

Rev. Matthew H. Snider, Aurora

This letter was published in the March 15 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

As all civil protests are voluntary exercises, Tina Griego’s column misses the point. Because Senior Support Services serves the homeless and I wanted to call attention to this fact, rendering myself homeless was the most logical form our protest could have taken. A sit-in at the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) offices, for instance, would not have as effectively drawn attention to the plight of the homeless. Declaring, as she does, my “homeless protest” invalid simply because I chose to be homeless is like discounting all attempts to walk in another’s shoes.

It was a symbolic act, an attempt to use moral suasion to get DRCOG to restore funding for homeless seniors. Never going home, garaging my car, and sleeping outside on public property for a month was the best approximation of homelessness I could offer to demonstrate our outrage at the unnecessary and illegal de-funding of Senior Support Services.

All nonprofits are experiencing funding cuts. But while DRCOG’s funding was cut by 13 percent, it cut Senior Support’s funding by 100 percent. Having benefited from DRCOG funding for more than 25 years, this was a terrible blow.

Ted Pascoe, Denver

The writer is executive director of Senior Support Services.

This letter was published in the Oct. 23 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Recent Comments

peterpi: I think I have this correct: Voters in Jefferson County elected school board members that the superintendent...

peterpi: Sounds good to me. For future employees. I believe police and fire dept. brass have also been known to get...